The mass shooting that took place at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas was perpetrated by a cold-blooded killer. As parishioners were taking in a sermon offered by Pastor Frank Pomeroy, 26 year old Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire killing at least 26 people. This was a horrible act carried out by an evil and deranged individual.

We have reached a point in this country where every national tragedy will be politicized and sadly, this one is no different. Almost on que, liberal Democrats have begun calling for Congress to act on gun control forcing conservatives to make impromptu defenses of the Second Amendment. Surely within hours, we will have liberal Democrats such as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) leveraging the tragedy into fundraisers meant to boost their own political war chests.

What laws are being offered by Democrats that would have prevented this massacre? If they are going to call for new gun laws in an effort to prevent further mass shootings, then they had better have prevented the one we’re standing in the wake of. At the current time, liberal Democrats calling for new gun control laws have yet to suggest a single measure that would have prevented the Sutherland Springs massacre.

Sadly, many people in America will not be told the truth; Texas gun laws were effective in preventing Kelley from legally carrying a firearm. The problem is that Devin Patrick Kelley BROKE THE LAW. Texas Governor Abbot stated that Kelley had attempted to obtain a permit to carry firearms in the state of Texas, but was denied that request.

It would be unfair not to point out a catastrophic error on behalf of the United States Air Force. The Air Force made Devin Patrick Kelley the subject of a Court Marshal in which he was handed down a bad-conduct discharge for a domestic-violence conviction, effectively stripping his right to legally purchase firearms within the United States. The law that prevented him from legally carrying a firearm was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which states the following:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The United States Air Force was responsible for transmitting this information to the FBI via a shared database. That information was never entered into the database which prevented the FBI from gaining knowledge of his past convictions of domestic assault. A key component to effectively applying the law is following protocol, which the USAF failed to do in this situation. A matter that will have to be immediately addressed in order to prevent a similar error from occurring.

Are laws going to stop criminals from committing crimes? Of course not. Devin Patrick Kelley did not take the Gun Control Act of 1968 into account prior to entering the First Baptist Church on Sunday morning. So what additional law or laws would Devin Patrick Kelley have followed? The answer is none. The laws currently in place for murder are extremely severe. In Texas, the punishment for being convicted of murder can be the death penalty. If Devin Patrick Kelley disregarded laws against murder that would result in his death, what gun law could liberal Democrats suggest that Kelley would have obeyed?

Laws are meant to deter crime while acting as a vehicle to punish those whom violate acts that Congress deemed “illegal.” We have crimes on the books against rape, yet the FBI reported 95,730 rapes in 2016. We have laws against murder, yet the FBI reported 17,250 murders were committed in 2016. Not even the death penalty prevents murder, why? Because the vast majority of criminals do not contemplate what the government will do if they get caught violating the law, especially if they’re determined to take another’s life.

The most effective way laws can prevent crime is through harsh sentencing outlined therein. Handing down long jail terms for crimes perpetrated with firearms is an effective way to use the law to prevent crime. But liberal Democrats in California, the same ones calling for additional gun-control today, just passed a law which allows judges to reduce sentences regarding felony convictions involving firearms. As liberal Democrats are calling for stricter gun control, they are weakening the mechanisms outlined within the laws that could prevent further gun crime; laws they helped pass. In essence, liberal Democrats want to enact strict gun control measures then give light sentences when those very laws are violated. Most people would call that counterproductive, but not today’s Democrats.

By the political left calling for gun control without specific solutions in hand, but ready to sign anything that weakens the Second Amendment, they have exposed their true intentions of curtailing or repealing the Second Amendment. But would curtailing or repealing the Second Amendment stop such a massacre as the recent mass shooting in Sutherland Springs? In fact, it would have exacerbated it.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Congress repealed the Second Amendment and deemed any gun-ownership as “illegal.” The massacre was stopped by a law-abiding gun owner who armed himself, engaged, and shot the assailant. The assailant was forced to drop his weapon and run to his vehicle where an 11 mile pursuit ensued. The pursuit ended with the assailant crashing into a ditch where he was ultimately found to be dead, either by succumbing to his injuries or a self-inflicted gunshot. If the Second Amendment had been repealed in Sutherland Springs, the only person with a gun Sunday morning would have been the assailant, Devin Patrick Kelley. The result would surely have been a greater loss of life than what was experienced in the First Baptist Church that morning.

If the Second Amendment had been repealed or curtailed in any way, as liberal Democrats clearly desire, would there have been a neighbor with access to firearms? Would the assailant still be on the loose? How many more lives would have been lost? All of the above are feasible questions given the circumstances as they have been presented. Regardless of the Second Amendment preventing further loss of life in Sutherland Springs, liberal Democrats are still insinuating repealing the Right to Bear Arms; the same liberal Democrats walking around with armed security detail… Truly the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

 

Advertisements